The Campaign For DA

12.18.2006

I like the word "Rumors" in the first sentence and the "According to reports" phrase in the second. I bet this is a done deal or the Messenger would never have run with it. (I heard the rumor on Friday.)

46 comments:

Yes, that is a very serious rumor about more failures in our school system and the Messenger would not have run with it if it was not credible. A couple of interesting points: Why is it that if someone commits an offense that would warrant dismissal, they have a brand new job created for them? Is the system so guarded or corrupt that it dares not take strong punitive action when necessary? How can we pay the cost of "manufactured" jobs for people who fail in their legitimate responsibilities? Would this be the case where you work? Does the "system" fear retalliation from the accused who may have serious allegations of other wrongs? What is really going on here and what have those people been charged with? Hopefully we are not going to be the victims of another cover-up. Thanks to the Messenger for getting the story out to us.

Sure, you can show up at the board meeting but it doesn't mean you will learn anything. They can handle this in executive or "secret" session and that is that. You will know no more than you will find out here.

You don't think her supporters (or those who DON'T support her) will not show up to the meeting?? Do you remember the circus when the ele. school principal was removed?

Yes - you are correct that the details will be discussed behind closed doors (most specific personal situations are) however chances are people will talk in open session and an announcement will be made at some point.

I guess my point more was we can discuss "rumors" all day but specifics will be decided (or at least made official) Tuesday night. Until then we can guess and make stuff up all we want but it doesn't make it correct.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer person. She's a real poop when it comes to the way she treats people. Remember, be nice to everyone because you never know when the day might come and you will work for them. Hope they treat her with the same "kindness" she's dished out to others thru the years.

Look at something thats happening:1. Pam Holland-replaced by a man still an employee in a created position.2. Linda Widden-Replaced by a man/ still an employee in a created position.3. Sheila McCollum-replaced by a man/ still an employee in a created position4. Melinda Reeves-to be replaced by a man/ still an employee in a new created position.

The pressing question is if they did a bad enough job to re-assign them then why keep them in the system. Call a board member, go to the meeting,sign up to speak, do something.

One can't speak about something one knows nothing about! Too much secrecy keeps these people in created positions. If these people are guilty of something that should be told to the taxpayers...then let that be. Why the secrecy?

I have worked as a teacher in the school district for ten years.This superintendent truly does need to go. He is doing far more damagethan what most people realize, and will continue to do so unless he is forced to leave.wu

As someone who used to deal with Mrs Reeves on occasion, I never liked er either. In fact, when I approached her with a problem, she laughed in my face. However, I thought it was just me having a problem with her. After all, wsn't she a finalist for "Best Principal in the Nation" or something a couple of years ago?

10;38, I understand what you are saying... that is an "announcement" of her reassignment will be made Tues. night. However, what I disagree with is the secrecy that obviously the admin is demanding from those who know what has happened. Not telling reasons for her reassignment has spread BIG vicious rumors that can really be very detrimental her's and other's families. If she has done something illegal or immoral that has necessitated this move, then the taxpayers have a right to know! Why would she be kept in the system? Will going to the Board meeting clear this up for taxpayers who will be paying into this extra position that is being created just to keep her in DISD?I don't think so.

This is why the board meetings have open forums - to let the taxpayers voice their concerns. If you have a concern then go to the meeting.

Yes - private personal decisions will be made behind closed doors - there are rules dictating this. However - if YOU have a concern then voice it in open forum. I hope people go and do just that. Also - question the superintendent, board members etc. as well - they are the ones who make the decisions here.

In a rural school district, it is commonly the job of the Superintendent to make the school board believe that they work for him and the athletic director. Once that is achieved, they do whatever he suggests and that's the end of that. If he doesn't want anything released about Mrs. Reeves, it probably won't happen or it would already be out there. We, the concerned citizens, should be ready for our dose of pablum and accept the couched explanation..."Mrs. Reeves will be separated from employment in DISD at the end of her contract because of a violation of ethics." I doubt that anyone will get any more out of the story no matter how many board meetings one may attend.

Does having the details of the situation make it any better? Whatever has happened is already done and knowing the juicy details isn't going to enhance the learning of the students at DISD. The most importnant thing that taxpayers need to be concerned with is that students are learning and preparing for a successful future. Furthermore, being a taxpayer is an obligation to your county and state government. It does not mean that you get to run the school district. In return for your hard earned tax dollars yours d other children in the community have the opportunity to receive an education.

The details are our business. Running a school is no different than the CEO running a corporation. A CEO is accountable to the stockholders because they have an investment in the company. It is the same with DHS. Whatever goes on in that school does affect the students. I have 3 kids attending DHS. Reeves has already pulled one stunt last year that directly affected my son. Reeves stated, "Research shows that students who take a Pre-AP class are more likely to go to college." Sooooo, she made all 9th graders take Pre-AP history. There was no choice in the matter. My son is average. He maintains a 75 average. He does not need to be in anything related to AP. That class almost destroyed him. Reeves' logic was faulty. Forcing kids to take pre-AP will not increase their chances of attending college. Kids who are smarter take pre-AP classes. Smarter kids are more likely to attend college. My oldest daughter is in all AP classes. These AP classes were made for students like her. Every child is different. We can't force them into these classes. Reeves seems to think that the kids can be forced into performing at levels beyond their capability. I would not be surprised to find out that this action was audited by the TEA and determined to be illegal.

Questioning the superintendent does no good, 4:06. He lies right in front of his board and has lied TO them. When that was brought to their attention, Gindt was never reprimanded at all. I, for one, don't believe one word that comes from him. If our system is to become what it should be here, then HE needs to go. Go..not reassignment, but GO. I still can't understand why this "immediate" discipline of the principal has "probated" down to a reassignment. If it was something so dire to need immediate attention...then why wasn't she fired? How many years are on her contract? 1 or 2?

4:55...what's done is NOT the end of things. They plan to keep her in the system. Maybe what was done isn't something the community wants to condone by "promoting" her to another position. If people knew, then they could make their feelings known to the board that represents them. But...since everything is SECRET, we just have to take what is decided and watch our tax dollars increase to pay for all these "promotions"!

Administrators and teachers are not "at will" employees. They have signed contracts that run for from one to two years in length. Under the law, there are only a small number of things for which a contracted employee can be immediately terminated prior to the end of their contract without compensation, but there are many reasons for which they can be reassigned if, in the mind of the Superindent, they aren't doing their job at a level he feels is appropriate, adequate or ethical. That's no different than any other profession in which people are working under a signed contract that both parties have to honor. Teachers, typically work on a one year contract, and if their level of competency is deemed unsatisfactory upon their summative evaluation, they aren't fired on the spot, but work until the end of the school year and are simply not offered a contract for the upcoming year. Most administrators, however, work on a two year contract which generally rolls over every year unless they have done something that causes the board to choose not to extend. As a result, they often have a year or more left on their contract when they are removed from their position and most schools will reassign a person who has time remaining on their contract. They would have to pay them anyway, so they might as well find something for them to do that would contribute in some way to the district until their contract runs out or they resign or find employment elsewhere, in which case the district would certainly agree to release them from their contract with the district. As for what has happened in the current situation, the law dictates that all personnel matters have to be conducted in executive session to protect the privacy of the person who is being discussed unless that person requests that it be in open session and no other individuals, who also have privacy rights,are going to be discussed.

I am not a school parent but once was and I am wondering about some of the gossip leaking out of this mess. Suppose high school ping pong can only improve if the players devote more time to it and better people are recruited. Let us also say that ping pong must follow UIL rules which limit the number of practice hours and earned credits.

Someone comes up with a solution! A new course called Earth Sciences IV is chosen from the TEA approved catalog and it is adopted in the high school. It is an academic credit course but in this school seems to attract only students in the ping pong program. The ping pong coach is appointed as the teacher and it becomes widely known that students in the class only play ping pong. They never have to study. Other kids become jealous that credit hours in Earth Sciences can be earned for playing ping pong and want to get in. They are denied. All of this is put together with the consent of the high school principal.

Next, let's suppose that someone who is pissed off snitches. Oh oh...! It is revealed that the Earth Sciences course is bogus and the ping pong players who expected to earn credits from it are now told they have wasted a whole semester of "learning" and must make up the lost credit hours in some other way.

What should happen to the "educators" who engineered this little scheme? (All just speculation, of course.)

It's not the first time a "special" course has been squeezed into the DHS curriculum for not so mysterious reasons. One was a college credit course that was required to have a minimum of ten students or it could not be offered. It was adopted with an enrollment of only four or five students and greatly benefitted a person very close to admin, and his friends. He became class salutatorian and was awarded big $ scholarships because of it.

Yes, counselors were aware of this too and, by keeping quiet, also kept their jobs.

It's not the first time a "special" course has been squeezed into the DHS curriculum for not so mysterious reasons. One was a college credit course that was required to have a minimum of ten students or it could not be offered. It was adopted with an enrollment of only four or five students and greatly benefitted a person very close to admin, and his friends. He became class salutatorian and was awarded big $ scholarships because of it.

Yes, counselors were aware of this too and, by keeping quiet, also kept their jobs.

I bet the MILE-LONG LIST of teachers who have TRIED to work for Ms. Reeves (who, consequently, couldn't STAND to work for her) are really proud right now. They should be. It's just unfortunate that the district may PROMOTE her rather than REMOVE her. They all should be ASHAMED...and REPRIMANDED...for this collosal screw-up! Don't let her stay on for one more minute! Do the right thing this time...FIRE...don't PROMOTE those who do a CRAPPY job!!

11:21 You are correct, aside from Holland (replaced by a woman), I think the bigger question is: If the middle school principal also held the same class why he is not being repremanded, is it because he is a MAN? I also want to make clear that I do not know the facts on this but from what I have heard this is over a cheerleading class that conflicts with athletics according to UIL rules. Both campuses have this class and I know for a fact that at Middle School it contains all Cheerleaders, I am not sure about high school. No matter what the issue, (which I don't believe solely is cause for dismissal) my question still remains - is this a gender issue?

Why drag another innocent person into this mess? Dr. Gardner and Mrs. Reeves had to have their schedules approved and "signed off" on by Dr. Nancy Vaughan. It's an upper administration issue. Schedules and personnel are approved by people at central office; they are not approved by the building principals. Hopefully the school board members will realize where the true problems lie and will deal with these rather than stick a bandaid on the problem. If Mrs. Reeves needed to be reprimanded, why wasn't it handled appropriately and discreetly? Good Honk!! 'Tis the season!

Seriously, if you say it's an upper adminisration issue, then that's micromanaging. They hire the campus principals to maintain their campus.And besides, how many times have we seen a schedule that was probably signed off on by upper administration (so you say), then changed because yet another teacher left in the late summer weeks. I understand DHS hired its last teacher the week before school started this year. Then, the shift comes. Students are shuffled around, some classes falll by the wayside - those teachers are given a "duty station", and other classes are created: to satisfy the needs of a select few. And remember, what starts out on the books, is often NOT what really happens in some classrooms. Maybe Dr. Vaughan or Dr. Gindt need to revisit the schedule every month or so, and see what's really going on. Maybe they need to pay a closer eye to the 5 & 6 point classes, and determine whether or not these upper clases, that enable GPAs to be padded, are offered for ALL students, and within the school day (and not taught in the summer at a certain administrator's house for only a couple of special people).

I just hope they consider the rate at which DHS teachers have been leaving that campus on a yearly basis, AND those who are vowing to leave THIS YEAR if the much needed HS administration changes aren't made before it's too late!!! It's time to start anew; our teachers deserve it and our students deserve it.